Well... since a "Grand Slam Win" means winning all four Major tournaments in one calendar year, I would say that every such accomplishment - rare as they've been - has been dominant.

Click to expand...

I think you know what he meant....

Incidentally it's not just forum posters who use the term to mean two different things - I've seen commentators (former tennis pros included) do the same..

If we want to go by fewest games lost, we should go back to the times when the defending champion only had to play one match to defend his title. It's probably best to restrict yourself to the Open Era or even the tiebreak era.

So... because I would like things referred to by their proper term, you call me juvenile names.
Right.

Why don't we call a television an elevator while we're at it?
Let's call a leopard a cougar, or a panther, too, while we're at it.

Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...

And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.

I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.

Incidentally it's not just forum posters who use the term to mean two different things - I've seen commentators (former tennis pros included) do the same..

Click to expand...

Just because commentators (or anyone) do it, doesn't make it anything other than sloppy.

As regards the question: In 1909, Tony Wilding, won the Australian Open and only conceded 11 games. Of course, he did only have to play 4 matches that year but he did win the event. In 1978, Bjorn Borg lost only 32 games in winning the French Open.

Also see a few posts in here too on women's matches - I created that thread along similar lines to this one, after I accidentally stumbled across Borg 78 RG, and figured it must be good - it was the all-time best!

So... because I would like things referred to by their proper term, you call me juvenile names.
Right.

Why don't we call a television an elevator while we're at it?
Let's call a leopard a cougar, or a panther, too, while we're at it.

Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...

And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.

I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.

Click to expand...

I believe, Deuce, and I could be wrong here - it's happened before - but I believe that "a" Grand Slam can refer to one of the 4 majors, while "The" Grand Slam refers to winning all 4. Kind of like talking about a god vs God.

I agree that Borg's 1978 was the most dominant performance in an induvidual slam (at least in the open-era). The number of bagels that Borg dished out in tournament was incredible. Borg won 2 matches in which he lost just 1 game in each. Borg's final crushing Vilas was exceptional. People take it for granted that Borg would beat Vilas, but remember that Vilas was also a great clay courter. Vilas still holds the open-era record for most clay court tournaments won and several long streaks on clay.

I don't stand by this number of games lost in the tournament as definitive though. McEnroe made the top 10 without even winning the tournament. Great as I have stated Vilas was it is misleading to think that his 2 slams were 2 of the most dominant slam performances ever.

Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...

And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.

I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.

The four tournaments are referred to as the "Grand Slam Events" - and the OP used the term "Grand Slam Title". When they talk about Federer, they say he "reached all four Grand Slam finals". You're telling us we cannot use the terms that the ATP uses in describing tournaments??

The term "Grand Slam" is used interchangeably to refer to one tournament or all four - the context makes it obvious which is being referred to. The concept of a single word meaning two things certainly isn't a new one...

Not sure about performance through a whole tournament, but if we're looking at finals it's hard to go past Steffi beating Natasha Zvereva a few years ago. That was like watching a baby seal getting clubbed.

You have to look at Borg and Johnny Mac in their primes. Borg in those Frenches (78 and 80) without losing a set was huge. Mac in the 83 and 84 Wimbledons was untouchable. Federer's Aussie Open triumph this year (07) qualifies - didn't lose a set and completely demolished Roddick.

Borg also didn't lose a set at the 1976 Wimbledon championships.

I'm not sure about pre-open era. I hear Lew Hoad in his prime was insanely good.

Also see a few posts in here too on women's matches - I created that thread along similar lines to this one, after I accidentally stumbled across Borg 78 RG, and figured it must be good - it was the all-time best!

Not sure about performance through a whole tournament, but if we're looking at finals it's hard to go past Steffi beating Natasha Zvereva a few years ago. That was like watching a baby seal getting clubbed.

Click to expand...

How about Steffi's entire 1988 French Open path of destruction? I'm not looking at the records but I think she destroyed all of her opponents with the exception of Gaby in the semis. But even Gaby couldn't get a set off of her. In hindsight, that might have been Gaby's best chance to win the French in her entire career. I never would have guessed that back then though as I was sure that Gaby would win multiple French titles.

Seems like Steffi destroyed most of her opposition at the 1989 Australian as well, including a 6-3, 6-0 thrashing of Gaby in the semis. Martina's run through 1983 Wimbledon was similarly brutal.

So... because I would like things referred to by their proper term, you call me juvenile names.
Right.

Why don't we call a television an elevator while we're at it?
Let's call a leopard a cougar, or a panther, too, while we're at it.

Language exists for a reason. And things are named for a reason - to distinguish them from other things.
If we refer to Wimbledon, Roland Garros, The Australian Open and The U.S. Open individually as 'Grand Slams', then how will we refer to winning all 4 of these tournaments in one calendar year? Surely, that can't be a 'Grand Slam', too...

And just because some commentators make this error hardly means that it's right.

I am right, and you are wrong here - there can be no arguing that.
So, instead of taking the lazy way out, and writing/saying 'Grand Slam' when you mean only one of the 4 tournaments that make up a Grand Slam, write 'Major', or 'one of the 4 Majors', or something similar.

Click to expand...

He said Grand Slam title, not win, so the term is correct. There are 4 Grand Slam titles that you can win per year, which would make up a "Grand Slam".

The four tournaments are referred to as the "Grand Slam Events" - and the OP used the term "Grand Slam Title". When they talk about Federer, they say he "reached all four Grand Slam finals". You're telling us we cannot use the terms that the ATP uses in describing tournaments??

The term "Grand Slam" is used interchangeably to refer to one tournament or all four - the context makes it obvious which is being referred to. The concept of a single word meaning two things certainly isn't a new one...

Not sure about performance through a whole tournament, but if we're looking at finals it's hard to go past Steffi beating Natasha Zvereva a few years ago. That was like watching a baby seal getting clubbed.

Click to expand...

As I posted earlier in the thread, 6-0 6-0 is quite a feat. But that happened in 1988 and I think 19 years is more than a few.

As for
Originally Posted by avmogheWhat exactly is your rationale for calling his usage "wrong"? Who do you think makes the "official" meaning of the term "Grand Slam"?

The answer to your questions are:
History.
and
History.

Click to expand...

History is irrelevant - language and sports all evolve through time. The fact remains. Read the ATP rulebook on their website - the four majors are called "Grand Slams" - and as such the OP using the term "Grand Slam win" is perfectly fine. (In fact, if you search around in the PDF, you'll see the usage of the term 'Grand Slam winner' in the exact same way that the OP used it)

If you want to start some sort of foolish crusade to revert back to the historical meaning of the word, fine. Nobody cares about it - nor do we appreciate the irrelevant spam. We are using the terms the ATP uses in their own rulebook, and there's nothing wrong with it since neither nostologia nor pedanticism are dear to us.

History is irrelevant - language and sports all evolve through time. The fact remains. Read the ATP rulebook on their website - the four majors are called "Grand Slams" - and as such the OP using the term "Grand Slam win" is perfectly fine. (In fact, if you search around in the PDF, you'll see the usage of the term 'Grand Slam winner' in the exact same way that the OP used it)

If you want to start some sort of foolish crusade to revert back to the historical meaning of the word, fine. Nobody cares about it - nor do we appreciate the irrelevant spam. We are using the terms the ATP uses in their own rulebook, and there's nothing wrong with it since neither nostologia nor pedanticism are dear to us.

Click to expand...

Language doesn't 'evolve' nearly so much as people become lazy and language disintegrates around this laziness.
If you wish to defend this practice, go ahead - but you won't ever convince me that you're right.

Laziness breeds the low standards that you support.

"History is irrelevant"
Well, this explains your perspective - and your support of low standards.

Language doesn't 'evolve' nearly so much as people become lazy and language disintegrates around this laziness.
If you wish to defend this practice, go ahead - but you won't ever convince me that you're right.

Laziness breeds the low standards that you support.

"History is irrelevant"
Well, this explains your perspective - and your support of low standards.

"Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it."

Click to expand...

Nice way to distort what I said. I said History was irrelevant to determining whether a word is used correctly today - I never used History was irrelevant for anything else. The quote you have there has absolutely nothing with the current context.

The fact of the matter is language changes due to natural evolution of vocabulary over time, technology, and even laziness. Change is not necessarily accepting a low standard - they are after all just a sequence of characters used to represent some concept.

What is idiotic is trying to tell someone they are using the wrong term when the bloody ATP uses it to describe its own tournaments. The change has been accepted by the most important organization in professional tennis and virtually everyone else, and posters usage of it has nothing to do with their own laziness.

Go talk to the ATP and call them lazy if you want - just dont troll and ask us to share your nostologia. Hell, had you tried to pick on the OP's lack of punctuation, you might have made a better point.